If you say, “Innate nature rejects this,” you may be told: “It rejects that even more strongly.”

If you say, “That is a judgment of the imagination,” you may be told: “So is this.”

If you say, “Reason has established the existence of something that does not occupy space,” you may be told: “It has established that only through arguments like these, whose premises you are discussing. If you establish the premises of a conclusion by appealing to that conclusion, you are begging the question. You cannot establish the existence of something that does not occupy space except through an argument of this kind; yet this argument can be established only by showing that the existence of something that does not occupy space is possible. You therefore cannot make that a premise in an argument intended to establish that very point.”

The opponent says to him, third: “Suppose you say, ‘If it occupies space, it must either move or be at rest.’ We say that everything that exists in its own right must either move or be at rest, since it either changes location or does not. If it changes location, it is moving; otherwise, it is at rest.”

If you say, “Affirming or denying a change of location presupposes the capacity for it.”